[Lostchild1962]

Just my 2 cents for what its worth..I do beleive each case is different, and they all should be closely watched..but the system doesnt work that way,they cant monitor each child daily.
Im sure its a double edged sword no matter what side ur on..

[lucyjoy]

The kids don't need to be monitored forever. My dad was one of 12 birth children. No one monitored their home. Just because my children are adopted doesn't mean I need them constantly monitored. But anytime a child is added, their thorough research by the agency, new reference letters, more interviews with therapist and SWer's etc. They talk to my children each and every time. So there is a process for screening already in place and there are a number of places someone could say-no, another child would cause to much stress. So that eliminates the need for state mandated numbers.

[Indy]

Let's say I agreed that large families are not good (I don't).

What would be the alternative? Long term foster care? Age out of the system with no family supports. I don't see people lining up to adopt the children I have. If you know anything about Lucyjoy, she is in the same boat. Sorry if I offend lucyjoy. But you have had a tough summer, harder than mine.

If it weren't for people like lucyjoy, more children would still be in the system.

As far as the comments about subsidies, that is a joke! Obviously, they haven't read how the state of MO CUT off subsidies for adopted children that are not title IV-E. Or maybe they haven't read the statistics about how adoption subsidies are usually less than 1/2 of the foster care rate. Please note that the STANDARD foster rate in MO is $300 per month. The adoptive family get an average of $150 per month. Paid for day care lately? Taken time off for counseling 1-2-3 times a week? How about special diets? That $150 goes a long ways....let me tell you! The reference to the "foster mama" making $5K per month for 5 children living in a 3 bedroom apartment, you should contact Dhs.Child.Safety-Permanency@state.mn.us . First of all, there are minimum requirements for bedrooms and space for children. Second, if this story is correct...someone should be contacting child services. Third, there are good foster and bad foster parents (just like biological families).

Ok...stepping off the soap box I have been on to long!

[Linny]

(Good posting, Indy!)........and I wanted to add:

In reference to the families that have many, many children (I think the number written about was 23 children?).........for the articles I have read about......these families have many other 'helpers' who come in to assist these very challenged children.
Most of these people who come in are therapists, nurses, etc. One might argue that 'what kind of a life/family is that????' But I assure you, those helpers would more than likely be involved with these children---regardless of the size of the family.
Case by case........and does this mean that the systems will have to be more sensitive to what's going on? Sure. But in some areas---of which I have known..........surely seems like the ones who are doing it for the $$, are the ones the depts like the most!!!!!!!! (And I'm not the minority who seem to notice this!)

Sincerely,

Linny

[lostboys]

My parents both came from large families my mom has 14 bio siblings and my father has 12. They where all loved and cared for and they are all a close knit family even today. Life is what you put into it, as is parenting. I have parented 28 children, some bio, some step and some foster, some of them adopting. I consider 11 of them my forever family. I have never felt any of them where ever given less time, love or effort than the others. We where all given our special talents by God, and I believe that with HIM we can do anything. I think big families are great, and I also think that if God gave us the ability and the means and 100 children to raise, how can we turn our back on them? As far as the money goes, We have homecoming dance this week and I have to buy suits and shirts and dress shoes for 4 boys this week. Hmmm, I am thinking that is going to be more than I get on the check this month. I have been doing this for a while and I haven't gotten rich yet.

[michellemartin]

An absolute need to limit? Really. So that would make it okay to stop bparents from having kids if they abused them, right? How about drug addicts?

I dont know about your state, but in my state there are people who are not allowed to keep their children. The state cant tell them to not concieve, but the state can tell them they're not taking the child home.

This happened to my older step brother and his wife. They had 5 kids taken away from them. His wife went in to give birth to the 6th and the little girl was taken by the state before my stepbrother or his wife could take the little girl home. I highly doubt that my stepbrother or his wife will ever be declared "fit" again and it's likely that they will be allowed to keep concieving children that they will never be able to parent.

Edited to add that there was a couple year gap between when the older children were taken and when the last was born and taken immediately.

[michellemartin]

And also I figure my post may be read that I'm for limit setting, and I'm not for limit setting. I think all families should be allowed to have the number of children that they are able to care for whether it's two or twenty.

[kllee4]

I wanted to piggy back on what Linny mentioned about the helpers that may come in help large families with special needs children.

I had 4 special needs kids (all bio preemies) but one in particular was so sick that we had nursing that ended up lasting for about 6 years! They were just like family and while I never asked them for anything, they would bathe 3 of the boys if they had to bathe one (it was more fun that way), start on dinner, change the diapers of another even though that wasn't their "patient", vacuumed, picked up toys, washed clothes, even walked them all down the street to the park so that hubby and I had a break. We still keep in contact with them and love them dearly. They were and still are part of our family.

So if they have therapists, nurses or other specialists that "adopt" the whole family and not just the child they were assigned to care for, then it can be a huge help (and a blessing)!

[numbr1dbcksfan]

On one hand a family going from say.. 3 or 4 to eight would be a big jump and the social worker may be able to anticipate issues from his or her past experiences that the prospective adoptive parents may not anticipate having. I also think that with a cap at 8 it allows the children to be spread out (age wise) and get more attention... (not that with 9 there would be an attention deficit.. just that they would get that much more...) Then when the older ones turn 18 and move out.. you can adopt again.. right?? Only 8 in the home at a time?? not in general... ??


On the other hand... if you have 8 what is 9?

Until one thing is suddenly too much and someone snaps and locks them all in cages!!!

Not saying anyone here would... but definately something every state should be looking at...

I really lean on the better safe than sorry side in these matters....

They cant tell you how many times to concieve(because it isnt their body)... like Michelle said... but they sure can remove those kids... as she also said.